SEI Asia hosted the Mekong Environmental Resilience Week (MERW) 2025 in Bangkok from 18–20 November, bringing together representatives from government, research institutions, civil society, regional organizations and media.

The forum reflected on the future of the water-energy-climate (WEC) nexus. While the concept of nexus is widely acknowledged, its implementation is hampered by institutional silos, fragmented data, and a lack of inclusive processes.

By leading this annual regional gathering, SEI Asia emphasized its commitment to driving evidence-based dialogue and supporting inclusive policymaking in the Mekong Region.

In his keynote setting the scene for MERW 2025, Thanapon Piman, SEI Asia’s Senior Research Fellow (SRF) said, “The water, energy and climate challenges in the Mekong Basin are deeply connected. And so are the solutions. Turning this nexus from a concept into action is now a practical necessity for building a resilient future.”

One MERW session on “Future Directions for Nexus Research and Policy” explored the region’s environmental policy challenges and the need for integration across water, energy, climate and development priorities.

Implementation, not just good policies

Good policies exist, but putting them into practice remains difficult, said Tu Anh Nguyen, Director, Department of Water Resources Economics and Management at the Water Resources Institute, Ministry of Agriculture and Environment, Viet Nam, who opened the discussion by highlighting a challenge many countries face. “Viet Nam’s upcoming NDC 3.0 underscores just transition principles, equity and strong monitoring systems. But without reliable data, it becomes nearly impossible to set realistic targets or evaluate progress.”

Viet Nam’s problems are a microcosm of the larger regional patterns faced by other countries in the Mekong Region. Data often are owned by individual departments and ministries in “silos”, or by sectors that lack incentives or mechanisms to share it. Even basic climate- and adaptation-related information is fragmented or unstandardized.

Local officials, who play a key role in implementation, often lack climate knowledge, slowing down community-level planning. “Flexibility and regional relevance must guide the next generation of policy tools,” Tu Anh Nguyen said.

The need for multilevel approaches

“Scalar fit” refers to matching the scales at which natural resources exist and the administrative levels at which they are governed. Often these scales are mismatched.

Research in the Mekong Region has shown that systems for water, energy and food systems each have their own “multi-level logics”. For instance, hydrological cycles function at a basin scale, while energy grids might be national and agricultural policies are often set internationally or nationally. Governance arrangements need to ensure that climate and environmental solutions are coordinated across multiple levels—from local to national.

Mak Srikhao, Director of Bilateral Cooperation Subdivision, Office of the National Water Resources (ONWR), Thailand, reflected on this challenge. He described how Thailand has strong national strategies, yet budget allocation remains stubbornly sector-based. “In terms of the financial policy”, he said, “the allocation of budget is separated by sector.”

No permanent cross-sectoral body coordinates WEC issues, which creates a critical governance gap, where responsibilities fall between the cracks of different administrative levels. This illustrates the poor scalar fit, where the integrated nature of the problem does not align with the fragmented structure of governance.

Thailand recognizes the WEC nexus, but without a permanent cross-sectoral body capable of coordinating across agencies, the country lacks integrated financing frameworks, which means that even well-designed plans struggle to move forward. Integrated financing also is where research is urgently needed: economic analysis, productivity assessments and evidence demonstrating the value of integrated investments could help bridge the gap between policy and budgeting.

Lamphone Dimanivong, Director, Power System Planning Division, Ministry of Industry and Commerce, Lao PDR, noted that Lao PDR provided a good example of scale tensions. Laos is a major hydropower exporter, yet it continues to face domestic electricity shortages, particularly during the dry season when hydropower output drops.

Dimanivong said that Laos is increasingly relying on energy imports from Thailand, although it also exports hydropower energy to Thailand. In 2022, energy imported from Thailand was USD 37.66 million, according to the UN COMTRADE database on international trade. The focus on energy exports for national revenue competes with the local-scale need for energy security.

Dimanivong emphasized that “with coal and thermal plans being phased out and solar and wind still emerging, Laos must prepare for a major shift, especially as many hydropower concessions return to the state by 2035.” This transition will require coordinated financial planning, technical research on pump storage, and a new workforce capable of operating a diversified energy system. Unpacking these scalar misfits is crucial, as it reveals the power dynamics and contested narratives that underlie the conventional technical debates about hydropower.

Inclusion is needed from project inception

Beyond governance considerations must come voices of people affected by planning and other decisions – often missing. Too often, people with disabilities are only consulted superficially in water, climate or energy projects, said Do Thi Huyen, Chairwoman of the Hanoi Association of People with Disabilities (OPD). She shared an example of a research survey on water pollution that asked participants, “How do you see polluted water?”— a question that entirely excluded the blind community.

“Meaningful participation must be built from the start,” she said. “Meaningful participation, not token consultation.” Huyen continued: “Inclusive research design, accessible tools, and long-term collaboration with organizations of people with disabilities are essential. The UNCRPD, Sendai Framework, and UNFCCC all mandate inclusion as a right.”

Moving forward

Suriyan Vichitlekarn, Executive Director of the Mekong Institute, argued that while nexus language is common, true understanding remains limited. He identified a critical institutional gap: there is no regional or national body dedicated to the WEC nexus. “Sometimes if you are a water agency and you want to invite … the energy sector, they said, ‘No, that is not going to be my platform. … I don’t want to be grilled in your meeting,’” he said.

Vichitlekarn called for neutral platforms where sectors can engage without defensiveness, spaces that acknowledge power differences and foster shared scenarios, integrated planning, and future-oriented dialogue. He said that the Mekong Institute will set this as its goal in the coming year.

Building climate resilience in the Mekong Region will require policies that are inclusive, grounded in local realities, and driven by meaningful cross-sector collaboration. The challenge now is to turn these insights into concerted action to shape long-term sustainability solutions for the Mekong Region.